You probably are committing infanticide Brian. If it were me, I would say an extra Hail Mary and pull that cork. If I like it, then I would go right back for another. On the serious side, it probably would pay dividends if you came up with a great food match for the wine.

Short answer: no. Longer answer: burgundies go through several phases of drinkability. Many are refreshing upon release from the winery, closed down after maybe two or three years and reopen maybe eight years after the vintage date. Thus a 2002 might be closed now and better if approached after 2010. In general terms, the wine simply labeled bourgogne (no village or vineyard designation) or village wines may not need to age where a Premier Cru or Grand Cru burgundy might develop more interest with maturity. 2003 was a very hot season throughout most of Europe and the riper grapes that resulted may need less aging time than other vintages. I am finding that many 1999 red burgundies seem to have stayed enjoyable and open, not going through the normal closed down phase. So enjoy the 2003 and take the opportunity to drink an older burgundy if you have the chance.

Just to take the opportunity to back up JC's comments and to add that if you were going to drink one vintage early, then 2003 would be a good candidate. Drinking a more 'classic' vintage early might be more of a shame, but if it tastes good then there's still no issue. Wine is to be enjoyed after all.

Quite so, quite so. But unlike Ian suggests, I've also found the more "classic" vintages fun to drink in the first couple years. We've done some big tastings on both 2001 and 2002 Burgundies and both were lovely (and both are beginning to shut down now). But some vintages take much more than 8 years to come around. I find that 88s and 93s are just beginning to come around (and frankly the couple 93 I've recently had, have made feel that they need a longer slumber).

I tend to find that with almost all wines, I will enjoy drinking them for a couple years after release - even something as tannic as Barolos!

I don't drink wine because of religious reasons ... only for other reasons.

Quite so, quite so. But unlike Ian suggests, I've also found the more "classic" vintages fun to drink in the first couple years. We've done some big tastings on both 2001 and 2002 Burgundies and both were lovely (and both are beginning to shut down now). But some vintages take much more than 8 years to come around. I find that 88s and 93s are just beginning to come around (and frankly the couple 93 I've recently had, have made feel that they need a longer slumber).

I tend to find that with almost all wines, I will enjoy drinking them for a couple years after release - even something as tannic as Barolos!

Otto
I probably didn't express that well. The comment wasn't focussed at the start of possible drinking (I've no argument with your comments for burgs there), but more aimed at a perceived risk for hotter vintages as they age. Some warmer vintages turn out great, others don't. For me a hot vintage brings more risk and variability into predicted drinking windows.
regards
Ian

My suggestion is to buy a couple of bottles. Drink one now and hold one for another year, or two to see what happens. My experience has been that even the lower end Burgs improve some with a little age. Looks like a good learning opportunity to me.

Sam

"What lies behind us and what lies before us are a small matter compared to what lies within us" -Emerson

My epiphany wine was a 1998 Joseph Drouhin Clos des Mouches that I tried at an all-Drouhin dinner in 2000. It was amazing then,.. just amazing.. I had never, never paid $50 for a bottle of wine at that time, and I didn't blink an eye in buying a couple of bottles.

It was also good a few years later, but that youthful vibrance will always remain in my mind. So, my advice, and advice I don't take often enough myself, is to drink 'em when you want to. You just never know, and you can't know what it will be like until the bottle is opened. Go for it.